AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
AI Index: ASA 28/4340/2016
28 June 2016
Malaysia: Drop charges against lawyer N. Surendran
The
Malaysian authorities must immediately and unconditionally drop all
charges that have been brought against N. Surendran, a lawyer and
opposition lawmaker, solely for criticizing a court verdict in 2014
concerning his client, the de facto opposition leader and prisoner of
conscience, Anwar Ibrahim.
On
24 June 2016, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur found the Sedition Act to
be constitutional, and that sedition charges brought against N.
Surendran are still valid. This decision sets a dangerous precedent not
only for the continued use of the Sedition Act against government
critics, human rights defenders and activists, but also raises concerns
on the right of individuals to legal representation and defence. N.
Surendran’s lawyers filed their appeal against the decision of the High
Court on 27 June 2016 to the Court of Appeal.
Amnesty
International believes that the criminal charges brought against N.
Surendran are politically motivated, prevent him from carrying out his
work independently, and amount to harassment and intimidation. According
to international human rights standards, governments should ensure that
lawyers are able to perform their professional functions without
intimidation, harassment, hindrance or improper interference.
The
organization is also concerned about increasing attempts by the
authorities to silence lawyers expressing critical views and opinions
about the government. More recently, on 31 March 2016, police hauled up
four lawyers Karen Cheah, Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and
Shanmugan Ramasamy to record their statements. This was carried out due
to a motion that was tabled at the Annual General Meeting of the
Malaysian Bar, calling on Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali to resign
over his handling of a corruption case involving Prime Minister Najib
Razak and his alleged link to financial scandals.
By
prosecuting lawyers that call for accountability of the government or
are simply carrying out their professional duties, the Malaysian
government is undermining the rule of law. Lawyers,
like other individuals are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly. In particular, they have the right to take
part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the
administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human
rights, to join or form local, national or international organizations
and attend meetings, without suffering restriction by reason of their
lawful action or their membership in a lawful organization.
Ever
since 2013, critics of the Malaysian government have faced an
unprecedented crackdown on dissent. In 2016 alone 21 individuals have
been either arrested, investigated, charged or detained under the
Sedition Act for a wide range of acts, from sharing caricatures of the
Prime Minister to Twitter comments onroyalty.
The
Malaysian authorities’ relentless use of the Sedition Act amounts to a
serious assault on freedom of expression that has had a chilling effect
on public debate in the country.
Amnesty
International calls on the Malaysian authorities to immediately end
continuing harassment and intimidation of lawyers, drop all charges
against lawyers, human rights defenders and other individuals prosecuted
under the Sedition Act, and to quash all convictions under the Act.
Background
In
August 2014, two separate sedition charges were brought against N.
Surendran, both connected with critical comments made in connection with
Anwar Ibrahim’s criminal appeal of his sodomy charge. The first was
related to a press statement he issued claiming the decision of the
Court of Appeal in this case was ‘flawed, defensive and insupportable’,
while the second was for commenting on the court decision on a Youtube
video. This is the first incident of a lawyer being prosecuted under the
Sedition Act 1948 when carrying out his duties in providing legal
representation to his client.
Link to statement as follows :
Posts
2 comments:
Charles,
Have you read the latest developments on HRD :
"MODEL LAW FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HRDS" RELEASED
Developed in consultation with HRDs and human rights experts from all regions of the world, including Protection International, the Model Law attempts to ensure human rights defenders are free from attacks, reprisals and unreasonable restrictions....
http://protectioninternational.org/2016/06/21/model-law-recognition-protection-hrds-launches-geneva/
Charles, now I can say that I've written and published a book on SEDITION :
SEDITION LAWS - ANTITHESIS OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY: The Malaysian Case Scenario Kindle Edition
by Hakimi Abdul Jabar (Author)
It would be improper to overlook the the highly-enlightening and very authoritative prelude, commentaries, articles and landmark case law by THE AUTHORITY on Sedition, retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice NH Chan which featured the DOYEN of Sedition, Param Cumaraswamy, a long-standing member-crusader of the Malaysian Bar, a highly-respected former United Nations Special Rapporteur.
The Sedition Act was again identified during the 2nd UPR in 2013 as a statute that restricts the exercise of freedom of expression in Malaysia in contravention of international law standards and of Malaysia’s international commitments. The UN Country Team (UNCT) for Malaysia noted that Malaysia “continued to use … the Sedition Act 1948…to silence dissent…” The UNCT further noted that although the Prime Minister had announced on 11 July 2012 that the Sedition Act 1948 would be repealed and replaced by a National Harmony Act, no such action has been taken. UNESCO recommended that Malaysia, “continue with its positive efforts to repeal the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act, which represent significant obstacles to freedom of expression.
In Hector v. Attorney-General of Antigua and Barbuda (1990) 2 AC 312 (Judicial Committee of the Privy Council), the Privy Council emphasised the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic system - In a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind.
https://www.amazon.com/SEDITION-LAWS-ANTITHESIS-DEMOCRATIC-Malaysian-ebook/dp/B01HP69EIU?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc
Post a Comment